Scotty99

Ok, what good does that do anyone? How about you explain to me what "privilege" means in general relativity?

See again this confuses me. You say: What does "privilege" have to do with anything? The way you word it seems like a denouncement in some way, even when relativity itself allows geocentrism to exist. Studiot the only reason i found your post is by going back to page 2 to see what the hell you are talking about! I know nothing of this man, do you really expect me to read a book before i answer your post? How about you give me a post it note version of his alternative theories on relativity?

Since you wont actually say what the hell you are talking about i will assume you are talking about " he Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle over General Relativity Paperback – 4 Feb 2014 by Pedro G. Ferreira Is this correct? You want me to read a book from a guy ive never heard of and has 5 reviews on amazon? Is that what you are getting at?

That is another thing that bothers me. What does "preferred frame" even mean in general relativity? I am only saying that the basis of relativity allows geocentrism, and on top of that i have hundreds of years of belief as a society that it was a truth! Umm what do you guys have again? 100 years of the same thing but you are superior because?

Studiot based on everything ive read from you, you are a complete lost soul. I dont even know how to reply to things like: If you google " a wacky theory" or "a wacky theory that fits my prejudices" you get plenty of nonsense. or you could just listen to ajb instead and get the facts. How do i respond to nonsense like this?

From the transcripts i see differences between the two, but like you said they are both relative. What i find crazy about these forums is that people only tend to disagree with you, they dont even for a second take into consideration what you are putting out there. To me this is the wrong way to look about life and the cosmos. I honestly feel bad for you if you cant see the points ive tried to make in the past couple pages of this thread. I was told at an early age to question everything, and i am thankful everyday since. As an aside. I have an open invitation to anyone on this forum who would like to do a skype interview with me. I am not particularly good at internet babble on forums (as you can probably tell). But in real life when people look me in the eyes, i see right through them.

1. I still dont see the correlation between the two men. Are you asserting lorentz symmetry is the same as galilean invariance? Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames Lorentz symmetry, named for Hendrik Lorentz, is "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space" These are two different things. 2. Again, im not sure where you are going with this. I said in a post above i am NOT a proponent of this man, he was an imbecile that gained accord long after he died.

1. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, i only know what i have researched in the past few months to be more equipped to have a logical conversation on this topic. I first started this post with limited knowledge and a gut feeling on the matter, i have come to realize to have a discussion on a forum like this one i need to have at least a common basis of understanding to continue. Now, instead of saying things like "sigh" how about you elaborate on why you think i went wrong on the topic at hand? From my finding lorentz covariance is not directly tied in any way to galileo. 2. I am not a proponent of giordano bruno, he was an absolute nutcase. Geocentrists do not claim this man, string theorists do.

1.What does lorentz covariance have to do with galileo? Do you mean lorentz transformation? 2. Maybe you should read up a bit on him, very interesting guy.

1.Anyone who has received a degree in physics recently knows every single argument galileo has presented has been abandoned by physics (and was also false at the time). Feel free to offer proof to the contrary. 2. Have you ever heard of a man called giordano bruno? If not look him up. He is the current martyr for the copernican model among other things. He was burned at the stake february 17 1600 for crimes including but not limited to : holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers; holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation; holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ; holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus; holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass; claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity; believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes; dealing in magics and divination. These two men are intertwined in history. Galileo wrote a letter just before his death to a man named Francesco Rinuccini. In this letter, actually nevermind i will just quote it from the wiki page: In his letter, Rinuccini first expressed great satisfaction at having heard about some observations of small motions in the fixed stars, which he regarded as providing a conclusive argument in favour of the Copernican system. He then asked Galileo to resolve a difficulty he had in answering one of the then common arguments against that system. Galileo began his reply with an apparent repudiation of the Copernican system, but then went on to reject Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmology as "even more fallacious and erroneous", to rebut the argument which had baffled Rinuccini, and to acknowledge that if the observations reported in his letter were accurate, they would imply a movement of the Earth "different from any that could be attributed to it" if it were assumed to be located at the centre of the Universe.

I went back two pages didnt see any of your posts, what was your question/comment?

1. Yes, all observers equally valid, glad we agree : ) 1b. Look to CMB (cosmic microwave background, im sure you know what this means just for people new to the convo) data going back 20 years, in fact it isnt the same in all directions. Its supposed to be isotropic and homogenous but alas the data says otherwise. 2. Not sure what you mean on this one. 3. With respect to the experiments that have been done? Michaelson morley being the most well known. 4. Again, not sure what you are getting at. I stated relativity was working against itself in a discussion about geocentrism (both can work in relativity) and many people believe relativity was created to push the geocentric model under the rug (for various reasons ive touched on earlier in this thread). Ill just link this: "Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460) Pay particular attention to: "If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field." Wait a second, i take the advice of posters (and put in the effort) in this thread to make science based arguments and now i get LESS replies? Should i go back to being more emotional? Who are the people that regularly post here? What do THEY try and get out of these forums? Im not trying to preach god here guys, i am merely showing that geocentrism is NOT dead and you need to open your minds to the possibility that Einstein had it wrong all along.

lol thats the point guys! In general relativity it states there are no special spots in the universe, everything is relative. By definition geocentrism works in a relativistic theory. You have to understand that no study has EVER been done to 100% disprove a motionless earth. Relativity is working against itself here, and many argue was created to debunk a geocentric view of the cosmos.

Just a few physicists ive come across that have cited the possibility of a motionless earth. Please read through all of these and tell me how have all these smart people entertained the idea of geocentrism but now it is simply brushed under the rug? Albert Einstein Kyoto University 1922[1] “…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.” Albert Einstein[2] “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” Physicist, Henrick Lorentz[3] “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Physicist, Arthur Eddington[4] “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…” Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli[5] “We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation.” Physicist, Henri Poincaré[6] “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Physicist, Henri Poincaré[7] “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” Physicist, Albert Michelson[8] “The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe[9] “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein[10] “Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and, if so, in what precise sense.” Physicist Julian Barbour[11]"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun." Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen[12] "Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?" Citings [1] Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982. [2] “Relativity – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169. [3] Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20. [4] Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8. [5] Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4. [6] From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St. Louis, Sept. 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956. [7] From Poincaré’s report La science et l’hypothèse (“Science and Hypothesis”)1901, 1968, p. 182. L. Kostro’s, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 30. [8] Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125, said after his interferometer experiment did not detect the movement of ether against the Earth. [9] Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. Jaffe adds this conclusion to the above sentence: “This, of course, was preposterous.” [10] Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73. [11] Julian Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 226. [12] I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78. [13] Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54. Also a peer reviewed paper from 2013 that shows stellar parallax can be viewed in a geocentric model and it does not prove heliocentric model: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7129

Its literally one thing, geocentrism. If i had heard this theory from somewhere else i would have the same thoughts on it, it just happens to be what the church was teaching as well.

Hey man i remember you, appreciate the reply. Let me try and clarify a little bit. First and foremost let me touch on this: I know its been a while since i posted but let me make clear again that i am not a religious person, ive never read the bible nor do i give god credit for everything. That said i do believe that we were created, and next ill get to the intelligent design point you made above. I 100% agree with this. I didnt mean intelligent design as in the traditional way, i just mean that we are created. One example i have thought about since i was a little kid was was are testicles on the outside of our bodies? I literally cannot think of one thing that benefits us being on the outside. (i know weird thing to think about, but something ive thought on for a long time) Again i dont believe nearly anything in the bible, ive never read through all of it. The only thing i am fairly certain on is geocentrism, and if geocentrism is correct that means there is a god (Creator). This is of course leads to other problems, i know the bible has a lot of crazy shit in there and if i believe one thing from it does that mean i need to take everything else in there at face value as well? Right now i am 34 years old and i need to figure some shit out. 1. I know (for me, i know) that we are created and some sort of a god exists. 2. Even tho i got the idea of geocentrism from the bible i am not convinced that jesus christ is our god. Where does that leave me? I feel some of the bible is correct, most of it is propaganda. I feel ive found a truth with geocentrism, i feel i need to share it with people but it sounds ridiculous from someone who does not live by the teachings of the bible.

Hey guys, its been 5 months since i posted and i figured id give an update. When i first created this thread i was simply curious about the idea of geocentrism and why it wasnt talked about more in mainstream science because as far as i could figure it was never fully debunked and the only reasons it was never given a real shot was because of the religious implications tied to it. I am now fairly sure we are an intelligently designed species, i dont have any real proof for this just a gut feeling. There is evidence this way and that way showing for and against us being created, but for some reason i just feel it to be true. Moderators please dont relegate this thread to the trash bin, that would hurt my feelings. Besides, even tho i do feel this way i still have issues with it. My main problem here is say the bible is right, we have known for centuries that we are the center of the universe and that it was created for us. As crazy as that sounds, to me that is the most logical in my head. Where do we go from here If we know everything, that god created us and everything around us is here FOR us what do we do? Do dreams go away? Do we stop exploring the universe? What questions are left? I am in a crappy spot right now, i cant lie to myself but i am also depressed at the thought of knowing everything there is to know and this is probably why science is where we are at today, because a world in where we know everything isnt a very fulfilling one.

Well you could easily see the supporters of geocentrism calling this a "first step" is i guess i was getting at. Thanks for those links strange i need to familiarize myself with more websites that arent so sensational and tell it how it is, sadly most of my news i get from favoriting the science section on yahoo right now.

Wow I just read this: http://www.dailydot.com/geek/big-bang-theory-universe-may-have-existed-forever/ Weird timing, Wow! Im just curious, what is the process exactly on how a theory like this would gain mainstream acceptance? Not saying this one will, ive just always wondered what that process involves and how long it takes. Im still reading up on all the relativity tests, its been interesting to say the least. Sometimes hard to understand because i need to go to a different tab to look up a word ive never heard before lol.

I am going to do a bit of my own research on lorentz variance as it seems (at least on this forum) the interferometer experiments are considered outdated and unreliable? I am not sure if sungenis touched on these, i know i remember hearing him mention lorentz but not sure how into detail he went.

I don't accept anything, just putting forth what sungenis believes to be true to have a conversation about it lol. Ive been accused many times in here about being a sungenis proponent when im just trying to figure out things myself. I didnt say "sungenis is right, he said galileo was wrong!" i said "thats what sungenis is getting at, that galileo was wrong". Sure i have some problems with how relativity works, its almost like faith in religion you have to just take it at face value because you cant test it. Also im pretty sure he does mention lorentz in the video.

Well thats what sungenis is getting at, that galileo was wrong.

Ya you aren't following. Try and make this more clear. Those original experiments expected to come back with a 30km's result to explain the earths movement around the sun, but what they got was 1/6th of this (which was deemed null at the time). But later in the video, and even from a guy in this thread, is that if they were able to prove the earth is moving that in and of itself goes against relativity. Im just trying to clear up some confusion on my end lol. Wait im an idiot, relativity wasnt invented yet. Doh! This is starting to make a bit more sense now with that out of the way LOL. I find this exceedingly odd, but that is the nature of relativity i guess. Does it bother no one else in here we cant actually measure the earths movement?

That's not what i was saying, didn't the original experiments expect to detect a 30km's result and what they got was 1/6th of that? Just trying to figure out why sungenis said in the video if they actually could detect movement that would disprove relativity when they were expecting a 30km's result originally (bit confused on this one).

I get that, but correct me if im wrong didn't they expect a number 6 times larger than what was observed? I get small variances, but 1/6th seems quite large.